|
Our Ministry
|
Shopping
|
Science
|
 |
 |
 |
|
$250,000 offer |
|
|
|
 |
Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
The Dispatch tries to verify the identity of those who submit letters to the editor, but this message presented some problems. It arrived on a postcard with no return address:
Dear Representative Linda Reidelbach: Evolution is one of my creations with which I am most pleased.
It was signed, God.
The Dispatch cannot confirm that this is a divine communication, but the newspaper does endorse the sentiment it expresses: that there is room in the world for science and religion, and the two need not be at war.
The newspaper also agrees that Reidelbach, a Republican state representative from Columbus, is among the lawmakers most in need of this revelation. She is the sponsor of House Bill 481, which says that when public schools teach evolution, they also must teach competing "theories'' about the origin of life.
Reidelbach says the bill would "encourage the presentation of scientific evidence regarding the origins of life and its diversity objectively and without religious, naturalistic or philosophic bias or assumption.''
What this appears to mean is that any idea about the origin of life would be designated, incorrectly, a scientific theory and would get equal time with the genuine scientific theory known as evolution.
Those who correctly object that the creation stories of various religions are not scientific would be guilty, in the language of this bill, "of religious, naturalistic or philosophic bias or assumption.''
Never mind that science is not a bias or an assumption but simply a rigorous and logical method for describing and explaining what is observed in nature.
What Reidelbach and her co-sponsors are attempting to do is to require that science classes also teach creationism, intelligent design and related unscientific notions about the origin of life that are derived from Christian belief.
So bent are they on getting Christianity's foot in the door of science classrooms that they apparently don't mind that this bill also appears to give the green light to the creation stories of competing religions, cults and any other manifestation of belief or unbelief. Apparently, even Satanists would have their say.
But the real problem is that Reidelbach's bill would undermine science education at the very moment when Ohio should be developing a scientifically literate generation of students who can help the state succeed in 21st-century technologies and compete economically around the globe.
The fact is that religious ideas, no matter how much they are dressed up in the language of science, are not science. And subjecting students to religious ideas in a science class simply would muddle their understanding of the scientific method and waste valuable time that ought to be used to learn genuine science.
The scientific method consists of observing the natural world and drawing conclusions about the causes of what is observed. These conclusions, or theories, are subject to testing and revision as additional facts are discovered that either bolster or undermine the conclusions and theories. Scientific truth, such as it is, is constantly evolving as new theories replace or modify old ones in the light of new facts.
Religious notions of creation work in the opposite fashion. They begin with a preconceived belief -- for example, that God created all the creatures on the Earth -- and then pick and choose among the observable facts in the natural world to find those that fit. Those that don't are ignored.
The scientific approach expands knowledge about the natural world; the religious approach impedes it.
The classic example of this occurred 369 years ago when the Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant the Copernican theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. That theory contradicted the religiously based idea that man and the Earth formed the center of God's creation. Had the church's creationist view of the solar system prevailed, Ohioan Neil Armstrong never would have set foot on the moon.
Today, Copernican theory is established and acknowledged fact.
When it comes to evolution, much confusion grows out of the understanding -- or misunderstanding -- of the words theory and fact. Evolution is a theory, but one that has become so thoroughly buttressed by physical evidence that, for all intents and purposes, it is a fact. No one outside of the willfully obstinate questions the idea that new life forms evolved from older ones, a process conclusively illustrated in biology and the fossil record.
Where disagreement still exists is over how the process of evolution occurs. Scientists argue about the mechanism by which change occurs and whether the process is gradual and constant or proceeds in fits in starts. But while they debate over how evolution occurs, they do not doubt that it does occur.
Another way to understand this is to consider gravity. Everyone accepts the existence of this force, but many questions remain about just what gravity is and how it works. That scientists argue about how gravity works doesn't change the fact that gravity exists. Or, as author Stephen Jay Gould has put it, "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.''
Just as with gravity, evolution is a fact.
Those who persist on questioning this fact are a tiny minority, even among people of faith. But they are a loud minority and, to those not well-grounded in science, their arguments can sound reasonable, even "scientific.'' But their arguments are little more than unfounded assertions dressed up in the language of science.
This minority also insists on creating conflict between religion and science where none needs to exist. Major faiths long since have reconciled themselves to a division of labor with science. Religion looks to humankind's spiritual and moral needs, while science attends to the material ones.
The Catholic Church, which once tried to hold back the progress of science, now admits that it was wrong to suppress Galileo. More than a billion Catholics draw sustenance from their faith untroubled by the knowledge that the planet is racing around the sun.
Religion, in turn, provides spiritual and moral guideposts to decide how best to use the awesome powers that science has unlocked and placed at humankind's disposal.
Nor are scientists themselves antagonistic to religion. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientific geniuses in history, was deeply reverent: "My comprehension of God comes from the deeply felt conviction of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the knowable world,'' he once said.
Others have made similar observations. The more the scientific method reveals about the intricacies of the universe, the more awestruck many scientists become.
The simplest way to reconcile religion and evolution is to accept the view propounded early last century by prominent Congregationalist minister and editor Lyman Abbott, who regarded evolution as the means God uses to create and shape life.
This view eliminates conflict between evolution and religion. It allows scientists to investigate evolution as a natural process and lets people of faith give God the credit for setting that process in motion.
As for what to do about creationism and evolution in schools, the answer is easy. Evolution should be taught in science classes. Creationism and related religiously based ideas should be taught in comparative-religion, civics and history classes.
Religion was and remains central to the American identity. It has profoundly shaped American ideals and provided the basis for its highest aspirations, from the Declaration of Independence to the civil-rights movement. There is no question that religion is a vital force and a vital area of knowledge that must be included in any complete education.
But not in the science classroom, because religion is not science. There is no such thing as Buddhist chemistry, Jewish physics or Christian mathematics.
The Earth revolves around the sun regardless of the faiths of the people whom gravity carries along for the ride. Two plus two equals four whether that sum is calculated by a Muslim or a Zoroastrian.
Reidelbach and her supporters genuinely worry that a crucial element -- moral education and appreciation of religion's role in America -- is missing in education. But they will not correct that lack by injecting pseudoscience into Ohio's science curriculum.
And Reidelbach is not the only one making this mistake. Senate Bill 222, sponsored by state Sen. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, is equally misguided. This bill would require that science standards adopted by the State Board of Education be approved by resolution in the General Assembly. This is a recipe for disaster, injecting not only religion, but also politics, into Ohio's science classes.
These two bills should be ignored by lawmakers.
In a few months, when the State Board of Education lays out the standards for science education in Ohio's public schools, it should strongly endorse the teaching of evolution and ignore the demands of those who purvey pseudoscience.
If you cannot take up the challenge, then we will know that your links are no proof at all.
I also constantly wonder why the evos here constantly post a pile of links, but never show, discuss or explain any of the proofs in the numerous links which they supposedly have read and absobed. Why the evolutionists here are so unwilling to show, or discuss the "numerous" proofs of evolution that they have. I have been asking for such proof for some 100 posts already and no one has taken up the challenge yet (except lexcorp whose "proof" was quickly refuted in #87). Again I must ask:
SHOW ME THE PROOF OF EVOLUTION!
Aaah, semantics, semantics. What is the meaning of the word "is"? What is the meaning of the word "alone"?
Since you seem to agree that science does show evidence of its theories by successful experiments and evolution claims to be science, perhaps you can give us examples of successful evolutionary experiments?
Since you are presumably such a genius perhaps you can explain to all of us how lexcorps article and the bonus of the top of 2 whale heads, one coyote head and two partial skeletons of land animals prove that whales evolved from land animals. Can you give an explanation or can you only insult? Inquiring minds want to know.
I will accept the above as a compliment.
Do you really want to start discussing the platypus?
At last, something we can agree on! You are correct, evolution should never be taught in a science class.
No you cannot. Science is about nature, about things that exist in nature. Science can never prove anything about something that does not exist. Math and logic can give "proofs" of things that do not exist. For example, there is no such thing as a perfect triangle in nature. Yet math can give proofs of them. Science is an examination of nature, based on hypothesis, experiment, and practical applications. None of these methods apply to non-existent things. However, since evolution claims to be science is should be able to give such proofs, but it cannot.
Wrong again!
Faraday was able to resume his work on electro-magnetism, when he discovered on 29 August 1831, electro-magnetic induction. This is the principle behind the electric transformer and generator. It was this discovery, more than any other, that allowed electricity to be turned, during the nineteenth century, from a scientific curiosity into a powerful technology. During the remainder of the 1830s Faraday worked on developing his ideas on electricity. He enunciated a new theory of electro-chemical action between 1832 and 1834 one of the results of which was that he coined, with William Whewell, many of the words now so familiar - electrode, electrolyte, anode, cathode and ion to name but five. In the later half of the 1830s Faraday worked on a new theory of static electricity and electrical induction. This work led him to reject the traditional theory that electricity was an imponderable fluid or fluids. Instead he proposed that electricity was a form of force that passed from particle to particle of matter.
from: Michael Faraday
Franklin had discovered electricity. Faraday had discovered the electric motor and how to harness electricity to do work and the theories behind it long before 1855.
Religion does not claim to be science, therefore no scientific proof is required for it. Evolution however, not only claims to be science, but also claims to disprove God's existence through scientific proofs. It therefore needs to give such proofs or be deened to be mere charlatanism.
A "proof" of evolution which disproves evolution. Dogs have been bred for different characteristics for thousands of years. No mutations at all were required to create the fantastically large amount of different breeds. All that was required, was selecting amongst existing dogs, those with the qualities desired and continued breeding of those with these qualities amongst themselves. No mutations required, no new genes, no micro-evolution, no macro-evolution, no nothing.
So what is the materialistic explanation for consciousness then? You claim it exists, yet it seems to be completely immaterial! I thought that atheists claim that if you cannot touch it, eat it or make love to it, it does not exist.
Quite correct! I have never heard of a light bulb being able to think or being aware of its own existence.
I have been on these threads quite a while and have read many explanations of how some claim to reconcile evolution and the Bible, and I must say that this is the only one I have seen that rings true. I really think that you have thought the matter out quite deeply.
However, are you aware that evolution is a totally materialistic theory and is an attack on religion? Are you comfortable with supporting a theory which implicitly denies God and is constantly used to attack those who believe in God?
like an alcoholic--"I can take it or leave it"---drowning!
When your in the trick box---jail...free doesn't exist!
Adam and Eve never had a chance---second chance yes...free No--never!
Realatarians believe only trouble is free---choose life-WORK(Christ)!
They were free to sin; i.e., not prevented from sinning.
free anything---especially right-righteousness---even grace is not free---the wheels of justice never cease--rest...
Yeah---free is cheap easy-grace...window dressings!
Where does the "prevention"--power come from?
|
Our Ministry
|
Shopping
|
Science
|
|
|
|
|
$250,000 offer |
|
|
|
|
one in the plane and the other in the trunk of his car...splatt!
I can't imagine why my prior posts have been so difficult to understand. I have repeatedly said that electricity is evidence of consciousness. Not "proof" -- although we certainly don't need to prove our own consciousness, do we? Anyway, I said what I said; not what you said that I said. Like a good creationist -- if that's what you are -- you now reject the evidence (because it flunks some test that you invented and that I never uttered), and you seem on the road to claiming there is no difference between spirit and consciousness. And although you reject the evidence I've told you about, which clearly destroyes your "consciousness = spirit" doctrine, I'll bet you have no problem at all in accepting the existence of "spirit", although as all the world knows, there is no evidence at all for such a thing.
Consciousness, which is largely an unexplored and poorly understood phenomenon, is nevertheless quite different from spirit. Consciousness has an objectively verifiable existence (as spirit does not). We know, and can easily demonstrate, that consciousness has an electrical component. It appears to be electro-chemical in nature, and the objective evidence of its existence (all those graphic printouts) appear to cease when the host organism dies. So the evidence suggests that consciousness exists within, is a component of, and requires a living organism. None of this evidence exists for "spirit." It is sometimes suggested that consciousness has a "spiritual" component too, but the objectively verifiable evidence for that, as with spirit in general, does not exist.
219 posted on 2/21/02 3:38 PM Pacific by PatrickHenryThis isn't my field (nor yours, apparently). But my layman's understanding is that the activity generated by our brains is different during sleep, dreams, waking activity, etc. I'm just not qualified to get into this in any detail at all. But this I do know -- there are no verifiable electrical readouts at all for creatures (deities, angels, whatever) from the so-called "spirit world."
226 posted on 2/21/02 4:19 PM Pacific by PatrickHenryI say only that there is evidence of electrical activity and this is associated with consciousness. That's all I said, and frankly, it's all I know. But this is sufficient to make consciousness different from "spirit" which provides us with no objective evidence of its existence.
231 posted on 2/21/02 5:08 PM Pacific by PatrickHenryBut how do you know that spirit and consciousness are different.
238 posted on 2/21/02 6:14 PM Pacific by AndrewCI've already told you. Twice. We have evidence of consciousness. Clear now?
240 posted on 2/21/02 7:01 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry
#141. There are a lot of links and summaries of links there. You might alert your programmer to help you understand some of the stuff therein.
I know, I know:
"Slime, slime, slime, slime. Wonderful slime! Glorious slime!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
